Speech to Scaffolding and Rigging New Zealand AGM

Thank you for inviting me to speak at your AGM this morning.

I want to start by congratulating SARNZ. Your commitment to health and safety is well known and I want to acknowledge all the work you are doing to advance the safety culture in your industry. This is no small matter, and the more organisations that take charge of leading health and safety practices in their industries, the better this country will be.

You will be aware that very recently the Code of Practice for Scaffolding has been officially revoked in favour of Best Practice Guidelines. I would just like to take a moment to acknowledge those who have worked to get us to this point, including current president Graham Burke and past presidents Frank de Vries, Sandy Bell and Laurie Sayers. A special mention should be made of Terry Jenkins, who wrote the first Best Practice Guidelines document, starting this process off more than 10 years ago. I would also like to thank all of those members who have worked tirelessly to develop this document over this period, and who share our commitment to safer workplaces. It's been a long time coming, but you have got there.

As a nation we have a tendency to fall over and injure ourselves. In 2008 it was estimated that the social cost of non-fatal falls was $1.735 billion per annum. In 2008 nearly 5,000 New Zealanders were hospitalised as a result of a fall. Whilst these figures reflect both home and work-based injuries, they do highlight the size of the issue.

Put another way, the National led Government has recently knocked 5 cents off the top tax rate, 2 cents off the company rate and a series of cuts to other tax rates. All up, this amounts to about $1.8 billion. The cost of all injuries was recently assessed at $9.6 billion per annum. Imagine what we could do with $9.6 billion.

While I am pleased to tell you that fatal injuries across the board have been reducing over the past ten years, I remain concerned about fatalities in the workplace. For example, in the workplace, for the 5 years to 2009 there were 332 fatalities reported to DoL and 27 of those related to falls from heights.

I am also concerned that serious harm incidents have been hovering around 6000 a year for the past ten years. I acknowledge that we always need to be careful when referring to statistics. There are more people in the work force, the nature of work has changed and reporting of accidents has improved. While these factors all impact on the headline figures, we do still have a significant problem to tackle.

And what can never be forgotten is that there are families and work colleagues behind those figures.  In some instances businesses fail because a key person in the business is unable to work.

The cost to the economy of having 6000 serious accidents a year affects all of us. We are talking billions of dollars in ACC payments, insurance levies and lost productivity, without even mentioning the emotional and human impact on those involved.

I know of a recent management capability study released by the Ministry of Economic Development that showed organisations that are leaders in health and safety practices within their industry also tend to have a better overall business performance. I am also aware of some statistics that show employers that belong to an industry association also have better overall business performance. These studies demonstrate that investing in high performance workplace practices is good for health and safety and good for productivity.

Some of the benefits of linking health and safety to productivity are obvious. Fewer injuries mean more people keep working and reduce ACC costs. However, many of the benefits are more subtle. Having safe workplaces enhances an organisation's reputation with customers, investors and employees. Designing safety into business practices supports innovation, improves quality and efficiency. Clearly, safety is not a trade-off for productivity.  The two go hand in hand.

To be perfectly frank, New Zealand does not compare favourably with other countries when it comes to preventing workplace accidents. Indeed you could say our performance is quite poor. There is no one specific reason why this is. We're all human, so we make mistakes. But we can do better to mitigate the risks we face. New Zealanders are getting killed and hurt across a range of sectors. Construction, forestry, agriculture and manufacturing have higher injury rates due to the nature of the work. It is these industries the Department of Labour intends to work more closely with. The revocation of the code of practice is a big step for your industry. It is crucial that organisations and associations take leadership of health and safety compliance. The development of the Best Practice Guidelines for Scaffolding as THE industry document means you will play a much more prominent role in setting the safety standards required. This can only be a good thing.

I know SARNZ has requested that the code be revoked on several occasions before and members voted at the last AGM to make compliance with BPG compulsory for all member companies. I am pleased that this is a priority for you.

The move from the code to these updated guidelines is all about finding the most appropriate tools to increase health and safety. Guidelines add to the body of knowledge within an industry. They also have the ability to be a little more flexible and can be updated and revised quickly and efficiently.

Most importantly, guidelines are developed and often driven by industry. I have spent a lot of time talking to employers and employees around the country about how they believe safety can be improved. The companies with the best records - and it shouldn't really surprise you - are the ones who take responsibility for staying updated with the best health and safety practices. They also keep their employees in the loop as to what they're doing and take pride in keeping a safe workplace.

In terms of maturity of an industry, SARNZ are already heading where we would like to see more industries and their associations. We want to remove the perception barriers of ‘them and us' by promoting greater industry involvement and decision-making. The basic truth is that the Department of Labour can't be an expert on everything and they can't be everywhere. It is the people who work on the ground, who know the ins and outs of the tools being used and the job being done, who are best placed to identify and manage risks. What I want to do is identify where industry is evolving and improving its practices so we can get everyone on the same page. I can't do that without your input.

I know issues of consistency and enforcement aren't new and have concerned some of you. For an inspector no job is ever the same every time, and I expect this is the same for you when you turn up to a work site. Inspectors are required to make judgment calls and so there will always be an element of variability. In fact I want our inspectors to demonstrate judgement. I don't want them turning up to a worksite with a pre-determined outcome. I am aware that there have been some specific issues around consistency between inspectors around the country. I have discussed this with the Department and they assure me that capability development is high on their action list. You will likely be aware that I signed off the Department's enforcement policy last year and this is available on their website. Transparency in decision making is a critical component in building certainty and trust. When coupled with good will and collaboration I see a relationship where business, employees and the Department will help grow New Zealand businesses, expand business opportunities, whilst ensuring people go home to their families at the end of each day.

In the meantime, we have subtly shifted how we talk about the prevention of falls, with the questions focusing on ‘why not' rather than ‘why'. For example, previously an inspector would ask a duty holder to take them through the process of hazard identification and what controls have been put in to place - as in, why have you done this? We have now shifted slightly to asking why an isolation method (such as edge-protection) was not required.

Some argue the issue of height safety is complex. I just don't accept that. When I see people working on two storey buildings without any safety equipment I just won't accept that these people can't see the risk. What is a little more complex is why some people don't change their behaviour.

When I became the Minister of Labour the first thing I said to the Department was that I want action. The Department has responded with a couple of new ways of working. Firstly, having reviewed the Workplace Health & Safety Strategy, they have come back to me with an Action Agenda for five priority sectors.

This is not a strategy or a set of high level policies.  What I struggle with is well-meaning, but practically irrelevant documents that identify the problem without framing a concrete plan of tackling it. Yes we all want more co-ordination and more productive partnerships but the focus has to be on how that translates to preventing accidents on the ground. What the strategy review identified was that an implementation gap has emerged between the framework and concrete action at the workplace.

I've made it clear we have to advance an evidence-based system and be able to show the need we are addressing.  I want it to be time-bound, measurable, based on good law and it should also reduce unnecessary compliance burdens.

The Action Agenda sets out specific actions about what they intend to do, including measurable rally points. The Action Agenda has been out for consultation so some of you may have already read it. I'm advised the Department are finalising the release so you can expect to see it shortly.

Another new approach that is closely aligned to the Action Agenda is the Harm Reduction programme. I can't give you all the detail under this yet, but I can tell you the Department has been working with international experts to develop new ways of working. The Harm Reduction approach continues the theme of highly targeted activities. It will target persistent problems that haven't responded to traditional inventions. I can tell you that the issue of height safety is one of the three harm reduction projects to be implemented this year.

Under the Harm Reduction programme the Department will continue to use the full range of their interventions. This includes revised guidance material and we are planning to have the prevention of falls paper out for public consultation within the next couple of months. In addition, the roofing, elevated work platform, demolition and industrial rope access guidelines are being written and/or revised. By 30 June 2011 we are expecting to have all of the height documents published.

The sad reality is that the average fall from height where people are injured is only 2.7m. It is most likely that failure to provide protection at lesser heights may mean that employers and associated parties are failing to take all practicable steps to ensure the safety of an employee. The consultation document will clarify the need for "all practicable steps" and a systematic hazard identification process for working at all heights.

One issue that we all know exists is the ‘she'll be right' attitude in New Zealand. Roughly 70% of injuries are attributed to human error. While progress is being made in design safety, complacency and workers losing focus is unfortunately part of who we are. We therefore need to recognise the importance of attitude.

One of my key goals is to increase the level of importance placed on health and safety on the ground and see more targeted initiatives put in place, led by employers. As I have already mention, from my perspective ensuring the safety of workers is best achieved with a partnership approach.

The Government obviously has a role in setting a general direction and the tone but ultimately every workplace is different. The Health and Safety in Employment Act recognised that a one size fits all approach does not recognise diversity. Inflexible regulation, often created by government agencies in Wellington cannot be responsive to our ever-changing workplaces. Workplaces and the staff in those workplaces are unique and therefore flexibility is needed. You know your workplaces and you are well placed to recognise your hazards.

As is often said, it is hard to manage what you cannot measure. Part of the problem is a lack of solid data and no effective means of gathering it or measuring health and safety indicators. It's an issue at all levels and it's an aspect the Department will be taking a close look at. It is difficult to judge the impact of certain measures, particularly as no workplace is the same and you can't expect every person to behave or react in the same way. But more communication and information sharing is certainly beneficial and if we can do it efficiently between industry and Government I expect we would see several positives. The best ideas more often than not come out of the workplace and the Government can facilitate these ideas and promote them around the country quite readily.

I certainly appreciate associations such as yours who are actively working to promote the safe use of hazardous equipment. You set high standards for your members and that's exactly how it should be.

As I mentioned earlier, injuries and deaths due to falls on work sites are a serious problem in New Zealand and getting knowledge from groups like you about how to address this is critical. We have seen reductions in our road injury statistics. We have seen increased use of seatbelts and attitudes relating to drink driving are changing. Behavioural shifts are possible. We all need to say that workplace injuries are not acceptable. Cutting corners in safety is not acceptable.

When every person who goes to work and returns home to their family in one piece, then we will know we are doing the right thing.

Thank you again for inviting me to speak to you and I trust you will enjoy your AGM.